Flatline wrote on Jan 31, 2013, 03:11:So much so that I've noticed that they're slowing down my purchase shipments now. I bought an RV switch for 8 bucks and shipping was at least 2 bucks, and instead of it taking 2 days, it took a week. Anything over 25 bucks I've noticed is still on 2-day... usually... but they don't jump on the shipping like they used to.

I'd call and complain about it, to be honest. They don't stipulate anything with Prime, so what you were doing is perfectly fine. It's not your fault they can't figure out how to make people aggregate stuff.

Anyone who owns stock in Amazon I'd like to personally apologize for probably significantly eating into your profit margins.

See, I have Prime, and especially before the sales tax thing kicked in for California, I used to buy pretty much everything through the mothership if I didn't need it that day.

Why? Free 2 day shipping and usually pretty competitive prices. Cheaper than paying tax and gas and wasting an hour running errands.

So if I needed something, I bought it on 2-day. Thing is, I wouldn't aggregate my purchases like if I was doing super saver shipping or paying shipping. I'd buy one or two cheap-ass items and 2-day it to my house. I have recycled so much amazon cardboard that I can't even begin to imagine how much it is and I don't even want to think about how much postage I've saved. I know Amazon gets discounts, but we're talking thousands of dollars at least. So much so that I've noticed that they're slowing down my purchase shipments now. I bought an RV switch for 8 bucks and shipping was at least 2 bucks, and instead of it taking 2 days, it took a week. Anything over 25 bucks I've noticed is still on 2-day... usually... but they don't jump on the shipping like they used to. I imagine because of asshats like me raping Prime for all it's worth. Best goddamn 80 bucks I ever spent online. Half of my teardrop trailer is Amazon purchased, pieces at a time, and I must have saved as I said a couple thousand dollars in shipping.

TheEmissary wrote on Jan 30, 2013, 16:46:I think you guys aren't seeing the bigger picture. Google is doing this so they don't lose content creators to rival sites like Vimeo. Vimeo a couple months back implemented a similar pay wall system for videos. I think they are implementing it to keep pace with the features found on the other video streaming upstarts.

I doubt it. Like I said, most of these content creators probably make more off youtube's ad-kickback program than they would behind a paywall. If I had to guess, I'd say they're trying to get professional content (ie, tv shows etc) on their site as pay-per-view.

TheEmissary wrote on Jan 30, 2013, 16:46:I think you guys aren't seeing the bigger picture. Google is doing this so they don't lose content creators to rival sites like Vimeo. Vimeo a couple months back implemented a similar pay wall system for videos. I think they are implementing it to keep pace with the features found on the other video streaming upstarts.

Well, if it was just for that they'd let Vimeo put up its pay wall and let content creators go there and laugh when they come crying back. Anyone going behind a paywall at Vimeo is likely to make less than they would on YouTube via ads alone.

This is because they want to do this, not because Vimeo is forcing their hand. Their market share is what, 90%+ of online video traffic? What Vimeo does hardly matters unless it could actually steal users, and given that YouTube was free it's unlikely much of anything would do that.

I think you guys aren't seeing the bigger picture. Google is doing this so they don't lose content creators to rival sites like Vimeo. Vimeo a couple months back implemented a similar pay wall system for videos. I think they are implementing it to keep pace with the features found on the other video streaming upstarts.

Verno wrote on Jan 30, 2013, 11:06:There's tons of awesome stuff on Youtube, it's just difficult for them to aggregate it outside of search because its sandwiched between Fail Compilations and Cat videos. I would subscribe if they could make their channels stuff worth a damn.

Hey, fail compilations are the only thing that get me through the day! That, and "shitty russian drivers" videos! Don't hate on the fail videos!

There's tons of awesome stuff on Youtube, it's just difficult for them to aggregate it outside of search because its sandwiched between Fail Compilations and Cat videos. I would subscribe if they could make their channels stuff worth a damn.

Silicon Avatar wrote on Jan 30, 2013, 09:48:I can't think of anything I've seen on Youtube that I'd pay for - but maybe a few things would pop up if the option was there.

I can also see a bunch of butt-hurt content creators making their channels pay-only just to discover that the "fans" they thought they had were only fans when everything was free.

There are actually a few people who create stuff that's cool enough to pay for, but right now these guys (or in some cases: girls) already make money off the advertising-kickback feature. And I somehow seriously doubt that they'd make MORE money off a subscription feature, because like you said, the large majority of their fans would not pay for their content.

Even so, eh, I don't blame Google for trying to find more ways to make money off Youtube. I just hope that at the same time they'll do something about the bandwith, because it's been pretty poor lately.

There will still be about 900 trillion free videos on Youtube, so no need to worry.